The primary focus of the meeting revolved around budgetary concerns, particularly the lack of revenues from the Planning and Zoning department. The council had anticipated $12,000 in revenues for the current year but discovered no funds had been recorded to date. This led to questions about whether these funds were allocated for salaries or other expenses. The council considered adjusting the budget to reflect zero revenue from Planning and Zoning, as only $933 had been received against a budgeted expectation of over $1,200 for 2023. Permit fees were suggested as a means to offset staffing costs.

Attention then shifted to the American Rescue Plan Act, where it was noted that $5,000 had been budgeted, but it seemed unlikely that any funds would be received in the upcoming year. The urgency of utilizing these funds by the end of the year was highlighted, with plans to revisit the matter in future council meetings. Suggestions were made to allocate remaining funds for public signage at the Community Center, though concerns were raised about the viability of future funding.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the general levy revenues, which are important for the city’s financial health. The council reviewed state aid allocations, specifically the Local Government Aid (LGA) funds, which amounted to $144,145 for the year 2025. This funding was deemed vital and was included in the general levy budget.

Additionally, the council addressed existing bond payments, referring specifically to a bond from 2013. The amortization schedule for these payments was reviewed, leading to a analysis of the city’s financial obligations. It was noted that these payments would continue for several years, adding to the long-term financial commitments of the city. The council also reviewed property tax projections, estimating revenues at $1.7 million based on previous entries.

The conversation touched on pull tab taxes, which had no budgeted amounts for 2024, despite allocations in 2023. The distinction between pull tab tax revenue and pull tab donations was clarified, leading to some confusion that required further explanation. It was noted that the city must take a portion of pull tab revenue but is also obligated to donate a percentage, creating a complex financial interplay that the council needed to navigate.

In another discussion, the council examined various licenses and permits, expressing skepticism about reaching the anticipated revenue from liquor licenses. There was particular concern about the projected revenue of $4,000, with one participant suggesting a safer reserve be established due to doubts about achieving even $3,000. The council reviewed the limitations on the issuance of liquor licenses, which are contingent upon the population size, noting that only one additional liquor license could potentially be issued.

The discussion also highlighted the challenges in collecting food permits during events like the Gold Rush festival. It was noted that Gold Rush was responsible for collecting these fees, but there was uncertainty about their adherence to this process. A participant emphasized the need for better oversight or accountability in collecting fees from vendors.

The council also reviewed the financial status of the fire department and state grant income, noting that the state grant had been left at zero due to lack of activity in 2023. The importance of reflecting accurate figures regarding fire department funding and revenue was emphasized, particularly the 2% retirement fund that would impact both revenue and expenditure reports.

A notable portion of the meeting focused on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the management of revenues and expenditures. The council discussed the distinction between funds sourced from taxes and those from general reserves, raising concerns about the revenue generated from the sewer plan. It was emphasized that while revenue could come from the tax levy, funds were instead being reallocated to offset salaries of city employees.

The budgetary breakdown illustrated total budget figures, including revenues from various sources. The general levy, derived from property taxes, was reported at approximately $1.7 million. The council noted an increase in the tax rate, which rose by 10.3%, and a 35.4% increase in the total levy compared to the previous year. This prompted a broader discussion about property tax trends across surrounding cities, with data showing varying tax rates, including 73% for Kenyon and 103% for West Concord, contrasting with Oronoco’s rate.

The meeting concluded with discussions on the necessity of establishing a fee schedule for water and sewer services. It was emphasized that the current rates did not cover the operational costs of the facilities, with a noted shortfall of approximately 36% per residential unit. The council expressed urgency in preparing a fee schedule, aiming for it to be ready for presentation by January, ideally to be effective from January 1.